Telangana High Court

Elugeti Charan, vs The State Of Telangana on 29 October, 2024

      THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA


         CRIMINAL PETITION No.12290 of 2023


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to

quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1

in C.C.No.10390 of 2021 on the file of the learned XV

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad,

registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 6 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent

No.2/de facto complainant lodged complaint against the

petitioner and other accused stating that her marriage with

the petitioner was performed on 24.03.2019 and at that

time, her parents gave dowry of Rs.10 lakhs cash and

Rs.5 lakhs towards fixed deposit, 30 thulas of Gold, 1 kg

silver, and adapadchu katnam of one lakh. After marriage,

on 28.03.2019 the petitioner left to UK by leaving

SKS,J

respondent No.2 in the house of her parents at

Chilkalguda. On 06.04.2019, her father-in-law took her to

Warangal, where she stayed up to 18.04.2019. It is alleged

that the in laws of respondent No.2 used to torture her

mentally stating that less dowry was given to them.

Thereafter, the petitioner sent documents for visa

processing, as such, respondent No.2 and her in laws went

to Chennai. On 20.06.2019 the respondent No.2 went to

UK and it is alleged that in UK on some or the other

ground, the petitioner used to harass respondent No.2 and

force her to watch porn videos and insisted her to emulate

those actions on him. It is further alleged that he used to

force the respondent No.2 to use tablet due to which she

suffered with severe health concerns.

3. It is alleged that on 31.09.2020 petitioner had sent

respondent No.2 back to Hyderabad and subsequently he

landed to India and took her to Chennai where he had

allegedly sexually abused her and even after promising her

to take back to UK, without any information, he alone left

SKS,J

to UK. Thereafter, respondent No.2 had received summons

in FCOP that was filed seeking divorce.

4. On receipt of said complaint, the Police registered

crime case against the petitioner and on completion of due

investigation, a charge sheet was filed arraying him as

accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section

498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 6 of the Act. Aggrieved

thereby, this criminal petition is filed.

5. Heard Smt Jyothi Kiran, learned counsel

representing Smt Divya Adepu, learned counsel for

petitioner, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State, and

Sri M.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for respondent NO.2.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner primarily submitted

that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are

unsustainable in view of petitioner being a citizen of United

Kingdom. She contended that initiation of proceedings

against the petitioner amounts to violation provisions of

Section 4 of IPC and Section 188 of Cr.P.C., as held by the

SKS,J

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fatima Bibi Ahmed Patel Vs.

State of Gujrat 1. She asserted that criminal proceedings

against the petitioner were initiated by respondent NO.2

after delay of two years i.e., just after receiving the divorce

notice and such act would clearly show that filing of

complaint was an afterthought and an arm twisting

mechanism to yield to her demands. She lamented that for

offences pertaining outside India, mandate of Section 188

Cr.P.C., requires that there shall be sanction of Central

Government before proceeding with trial. Therefore, while

advocating that the offences as alleged against the

petitioner are vague and baseless, prayed this Court to

allow the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings

initiated against petitioner.

7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State, and

learned counsel for respondent No.2, respectively, strongly

opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for

petitioner and submitted that quashing of proceedings

2008 6 SCC 789

SKS,J

against the petitioner cannot be entertained at this stage

as the allegations leveled are with regard to harassing

respondent No.2 demanding additional dowry and also

abusing her sexually, and the same being serious in

nature, the matter requires trial.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that

the provisions of Section 188 Cr.P.C., would not attract in

the case of petitioner as the offence was committed in India

itself. He denied the contention of learned counsel for

petitioner with regard to delay of two years in initiating

criminal proceedings and asserted that the petitioner

abandoned the respondent No.2 in the second week of

January 2021 by leaving India and then prepared the

divorce OP on 25.01.2021 by filing the same on 25.02.2021

and that the respondent NO.2 received notice of divorce

petition on 17.03.2021 and thereafter she got her

complaint registered vide crime No.88 of 2021 on

11.06.2021. While advocating that quashing of proceedings

would amount to abuse of process of law, he prayed the

Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

SKS,J

9. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on

perusing the material placed on record, it is noted that the

primary contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that

as there is no permission obtained from the Central

Government to prosecute petitioner who is a citizen of UK,

as required under the provisions of Section 188 Cr.P.C.,

proceedings against the petitioner are not maintainable.

10. On going through the averments made in complaint,

it is noticed that petitioner had allegedly harassed

respondent No.2 not only when he was living in UK but

also when he was in India by insisting her to break the

fixed deposit. Further, petitioner had also taken

respondent No.2 to Chennai during his visit to India and

had allegedly harassed her sexually and thereafter he went

away to Hanumakonda and later on flew to UK. Therefore,

there is no force in the said contention as the mandate

under Section 188 of Cr.P.C., gets attracted when the

entirety of the offence is committed outside India.

SKS,J

11. That apart, the second contention of learned counsel

for petitioner is with regard to delay of two years in lodging

complaint after receiving the divorce notice. Perusal of

material on record would reveal that there was no such

delay as the petitioner abandoned respondent No.2 in the

second week of January 2021 by leaving India and then

prepared the divorce OP on 25.01.2021 by filing the same

on 25.02.2021 and that the respondent NO.2 received

notice of divorce petition on 17.03.2021 and thereafter she

got her complaint registered vide crime No.88 of 2021 on

11.06.2021. Therefore, there is no force in this contention

as well.

12. The third contention of learned counsel for petitioner

is that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are

vague and baseless and that there are no averments or

evidence to prove the same.

SKS,J

13. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya

Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 2, observed as under:

"The High Court in exercise of its powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not

function as a Court of appeal or revision.

This Court has, in several judgments, held

that the inherent jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to

be used sparingly, carefully and with

caution. The High Court, under Section

482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from

giving a prima facie decision in a case

where the entire facts are incomplete and

hazy, more so when the evidence has not

been collected and produced before the

Court and the issues involved, whether

factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and

cannot be seen in their true perspective

without sufficient material."